Accepted byacc 1.9.1-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:25:27 -0400 Source: byacc Binary: byacc Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.9.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jason Henry Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jason Henry Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: byacc - The Berkeley LALR parser generator Closes: 142271 146195 Changes: byacc (1.9.1-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Maintainer upload. * Fixed alternatives entry, closes: Bug#146195; * Changed priority to extra at behest of Daniel Bungert, closes: Bug#142271. * Fixed awful packaging error which meant the test/ directory was excluded from the orig.tar.gz. Files: 9f23105ebbc92ba4958b34cce7cb05b5 587 devel extra byacc_1.9.1-1.dsc e298309911d824f372ea526b450f7891 56905 devel extra byacc_1.9.1.orig.tar.gz 36d3adfbc05ce923dec229677cc17b72 174 devel extra byacc_1.9.1-1.diff.gz 2d03a5f7ffd7c73a6c3d072d038884e2 30952 devel extra byacc_1.9.1-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9lM4OOCtgDX2TXYERAiiqAJ9PfL7Am7LTQPhUaAFCb8oRZOTN3gCfbGfv fLnoQurD3eUCMeycau+W1sY= =9wKh -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: byacc_1.9.1-1.diff.gz to pool/main/b/byacc/byacc_1.9.1-1.diff.gz byacc_1.9.1-1.dsc to pool/main/b/byacc/byacc_1.9.1-1.dsc byacc_1.9.1-1_i386.deb to pool/main/b/byacc/byacc_1.9.1-1_i386.deb byacc_1.9.1.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/b/byacc/byacc_1.9.1.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: The display manager starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication failure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X server. Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all of them failed then? Why does that mean the problem is with the X server? jason -- ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something, without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it (read [EMAIL PROTECTED] again and understand it). When asked about specific info, you take it as an attack on your personality and spam debian-devel. Then you don't even give all the answers you were asked to give. And I have made substantial bug reports in the past, so I can't be said to have a consistent history of false reports. That is not the claim that Martin made. And some of the assessments of bug reports are truly personal insults. For instance xfree86 maintainer's reassignment of the possibly unresolved bug to gdm is full of offense. Oh, you've simply got to be joking. You just agreed it was probably not the X server's fault! I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow. *shudder* jason -- ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
ITP: libcrypt-ssleay-perl
[This message has been submitted as a wishlist bug against wnpp; the bug number is 80584.] Crypt::SSLeay allows LWP::UserAgent objects (among others) to correctly perform GET and POST operations over HTTPS. Since it uses SSL, the package will depend on libssl095a (and build-depend on the appropriate -dev package, of course). I downloaded my copy of the upstream sources from ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/CPAN/authors/C/CH/CHAMAS/Crypt-SSLeay-0.18.tar.gz. Copyright: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. All that remains is to work out appropriate build-time dependencies, remove the interactive build-time configuration, test the package, and upload it. -- ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Re: Bug#80544: [rename] can't rename dir with valid permissions
Eray Ozkural (exa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Check it out for yourself: orion:Stuff$ ls -ald desktop.* -rwxrwxr-x1 root windows 125 Nov 20 1998 desktop.ini orion:Stuff$ mv desktop.ini desktop.what! orion:Stuff$ ls -ald desktop.* -rwxrwxr-x1 root windows 125 Nov 20 1998 desktop.what! orion:Stuff$ mv desktop.what! desktop.ini orion:Stuff$ ls -ald desktop.* -rwxrwxr-x1 root windows 125 Nov 20 1998 desktop.ini orion:Stuff$ What are the permissions on the directory Stuff? Permission to unlink and rename files in a directory is granted by write access to the directory that contains the link, not by the permissions on the file itself. It's difficult to tell from your initial bug report if you have write permissions to the directory containing the directory Rob Zombie (mp3) or not. I just ran a test with gmc and was able to rename a directory within a directory I had rights to. I then chowned the parent directory to root.root, and got the appropriate error from gmc. At a guess, I would say this is a non-bug. jason -- ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws
Re: RBL report..
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And taking people off the list is automatic. Fix it, enter the IP in their form, it gets re-cehcekd and taken off the list. Works like a charm. My recent experience with ORBS backs this up. If people configured their servers correctly, they'd never get on the list. ;-) Also, ORBS allows for I think 3-5 days warning in advance, which is sufficient to fix a server. postmaster at a host I co-admin got mail from ORBS a few days before Christmas of 1999. We were given four weeks to fix our open relay, plenty of logs and a reasonable amount of help from the ORBS website on how to fix it. The only difficult part was finding how to upgrade our mailserver! Having been on the nasty end of the ORBS stick, I still give it a thumbs-up. jason -- \ _/__ ``I need every braincell blazing \X / to fight my invisible enemies!'' \/
Re: RBL report..
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Four weeks? Did they change this? When we got blacklisted coz a customer (open relay) used us as a smart host, they gave us four days ;-). All I can report is my experience. I got four weeks. Yeah, me too. They're competent, cool people, and their system works in almost totally eleminating spam, unlike the other RBLs out there. I don't use ORBS, but I'd be happy to. My experience with them showed them to be quick to respond to requests, but at the same time unyielding in their policy, no matter what (kind of like Star Trek, really). If I set up a mailhost again, I'll be running it past ORBS when I think I have it ready to test for open relays; it looked to me as though they had a very good suite of tests. jason -- \ _/__ ``I need every braincell blazing \X / to fight my invisible enemies!'' \/
Re: RBL report..
Steve Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is misleading. What ORBS does is *test* mail servers to ensure that it *is* an open relay, before adding the relay's address to the list. They do NOT (according to the web page) scan the net for open relays. Rather, the list is generated solely from reports (via web or email) from folks that have been spammed. While looking into the fact of the matter (which appears to be correct), I found this idea on the orbs web-page: } Admins may alternatively set their systems up to tag messages } delivered from open servers as possibly spam, or just log the } connections. What any admin does is entirely up to that admin. If } you've been blocked from delivering mail and given a pointer to this } site please note: It is the decision of the administrator of the site } which blocked you to disallow mail from open relays. Those open relays } must comply with that admin's rules (not ours) in order to deliver } mail to that site - we're just verifying to the admin whether a host } is an open relay or not. Would it be possible to insert an X-Header on email that looks `suspiscious'? That way no-one has to be cut out of sending mail to the debian lists, and those who want to can score down, killfile or whatever to their heart's content. jason -- \ _/__ ``I need every braincell blazing \X / to fight my invisible enemies!'' \/
Re: RBL report..
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote: I don't see how you can create a false positive on a relay test. Either the message gets through, and you're an open relay, or it doesn't, and you're fine. It's quite simple, really. Actually, I ran the relay test at abuse.net on two of my domains last night. One of the tests results in an email being accepted but not actually sent. It sends a message from your own domain to another address; exim accepts those, but then they don't get sent. Yes, and ORBS tests if the email gets sent or not. Your point? [It tries to relay some mail From some address A to another address B and waits for the mail to arrive at B. It's hard to see how this could be any simpler.] jason -- \ _/__ ``I need every braincell blazing \X / to fight my invisible enemies!'' \/
